Menu

Calendar

ab initio (Latin, From the beginning)
We have had numerous requests to create a safer environment for our first time track day participants, so here you go, this is the group for the absolute first time track day rider. There will be plenty of instruction including chalk talks, on track observation, Q&A and many sessions during the day to practice. we want to create an environment where the newest of new can develop skills at a pace that is non-threatening and comfortable. If you show a higher level of skill or have attended track days elsewhere this is not the group for you, expect to be moved up to Relaxed or Intermediate Street if there is space available. Minimum gear requirements: Textile riding jacket & pants, boots that cover your ankles, riding gloves that cinch at the wrist, and a DOT or Snell approved helmet.

In 1976 I figured I had the world by the tail once I discovered how to use Reference Points while riding and racing. That realization set me on the twisty road of rider-improvement discovery and began my maiden voyage of exploration into rider training. I began coaching students one-on-one, developing a curriculum that relied heavily on Reference Points and how to use them at tracks. I applied the data from that coaching and the Superbike School which was born in 1980 just after retiring from racing.

Prior to those coaching experiences, Reference Points (RPs) usually only meant having braking markers. Lines were a topic of discussion but no procedure existed on how to figure out a line, how to dissect one or how to stitch a track together with RPs. From experience gained at the schools and later, coaching several factory riders, I wrote more on how to find and use RPs. That info came out in the first A Twist of the Wrist book in 1984. Today we know much more about RPs and what kind of visual skills a rider needs to develop.

RPs assist us in defining the Space we’re in and the Speed we’re traveling through it. Accuracy with those elements relies heavily on having a minimum of three Reference Points (RPs).

An accurate orientation in space begins with two external Reference Points. We find two points or objects or areas first and this then gives us a reckoning of our own location where we become the third point of orientation. Together, that creates an accurate tracking of the direction of our progress in relation to the other two.

With those three, our eyes begin to create 3D space, which in turn improves our perception of relative speed and direction of travel. Also, and importantly, our sense of time and timing switches on quite automatically. In short, RPs help us create perspective.

Finding and using Reference Points is quite natural and native to our survival: rarely do we walk into a closed door or bump against the furniture nor do we count how many steps it will take to walk across a room. RPs are automatically taken into account and coordinated.

Some riders have a hard time finding and using RPs. While their very survival has relied on that ability they still insist that it’s difficult. This peeked my interest to find out why they struggle with something they already do.

In riding there are many barriers but only two freedoms: The freedom to change the speed and to change the direction of the bike. Without RPs it’s impossible to do them well.

Having the bike pointed where you want it to go is another ingrained-use we make of RPs. Whether conscious of it or not, we always have an intended destination, a location we are seeking to reach.

Arriving at a location simply refers to staying in your lane, missing a pothole, not running wide, picking your turn entry, finding a line, recognizing you are on a line at all or simply avoiding hitting a car. Accurately gauging when and how much to gas, brake and turn so we can arrive somewhere depends on having three RPs.

So why the difficulty? Accuracy and purpose both have something to do with it. Starting off with the idea to keep the bike on the road is a good goal; when it comes to cornering motorcycles it isn’t enough. Lining up for a corner right on the edge, in order to open the turn’s radius as wide as possible is correct thinking for most turns. Starting that turn 3 feet inside the edge defeats that purpose; especially on the road where 3 feet is 25% of the whole lane. Not accustomed to being that accurate, riders default to “safe in the middle of the road”.

There are other visual and control weaknesses that can contribute to this common error. Not being adept at steering the bike can make any rider edge-shy. If they subscribe to so called ‘Body Steering’ they’ve experienced the bike lazily changing directions often enough to avoid being too close to the edge of their lane.

RPs themselves have a viable range of application. Too close or too far away on the road’s surface are their chief parameters. Too far to one side or the other of your intended line can also create problems.

The how, when and where of using RPs is nicely wrapped up in the two dozen drills I’ve developed which can be coached by someone trained to recognize the rider errors resulting from not having sufficient RPs. That’s good news.

The bad news is we now run smack into every rider’s mortal enemy, that of Target Fixation. Target fixated is bad; it signals the onset of varying degrees of panic. The kicker is that the main reason we panic is because we’ve lost our other RPs. When target fixed we only have that one RP and we need two.

Drilling and coaching on correct visual techniques with simple and doable exercises heads off the classic visual faults humans seem stuck with. It seems impossible to eliminate target fixation, tunnel vision and over-active scanning. However, through understanding and drilling of what, where, how far ahead, how wide and even how long we should look at our RPs we can make deep inroads into the problems and find solutions to them.

At the schools we haven’t sat still on these problems. At this point in time, we’ve developed 64 visual exercises our coaching staff use regularly to help their students understand and to improve what you could easily say is the most important part of any rider’s skill portfolio.

Debates tend to degenerate into generalities, opinions and hearsay in the absence of defined terms. Debating generalities gives me a headache. In the old Counter-Steering vs Body-Steering debate it often stalemates into “My expert is better than yours”. Let’s try this, forget “Body” and “Counter” for a moment and just define steering. To accurately and predictably place, guide and direct an object towards or away from a known location in space.

With that definition in mind, let’s investigate two of the common Body-Steering claims that bikes will “steer” with a) footpeg or b) knee-to-tank pressure.

Beside Einstein probably the most famous physicist ever, Sir Isaac Newton, had something to say about it. His three Laws of Motion, developed in the 17th century, have stood the test of 300 years. His third law, often shortened to, “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”, sheds light on this Body Steering vs Counter Steering argument.

The law is often misunderstood. It sounds like an object being pushed upon, like your footpeg or tank, will respond to the pressure and move an equal amount. That isn’t what the law means. It means force always comes in pairs: The force initiated and the resistance to that effort.

Press on your desk with a force of ten pounds and the desk pushes back at you with a force of ten pounds, nothing moves. The desk pushes back? Yes. You can say that it resists your press but in the end it is pressing back at you with an equal and opposite force. If that gives you a headache, I understand. Some examples might help.

Picture sitting in a rocking chair. If you pressed with your foot on one of the rocker tips what would happen? Not much. Sit in your car and press on the dashboard. Will the car move forward? Pressing on the tank or the footpeg of your bike is precisely the same Law of Motion in operation. The footpegs and the tank will resist, in an equal and opposing direction, any force you can apply to them. Given enough pressure, the tank would cave in or the pegs would bend but the bike will not 'steer'.

On the other hand, if you quickly shift or throw your body’s mass forward and backwards, while sitting in a rocking chair, the chair will begin to rock. You have created a sudden imbalance of forces and the chair moves. Throwing your body around on your bike like that would look and feel ridiculous.

Riding a bike with no hands is a similar phenomena. By pressing on one peg or the other the body must change its position to create an imbalance, just like a rocking chair. The imbalance tilts the bike over very slightly onto the smaller diameter of the tire and the bike begins to arc–slightly. Does this fulfill the above definition of steering? No, it falls far short of that.

Peg weighting/tank pressing have virtually no effect without the C-Steering component. The bike won’t even weave through cones at 15 mph let alone carve precision lines at speed; a pothole or car cannot be quickly avoided; you’d never get your bike through the “Corkscrew” at any speed. It isn’t “steering”.

MotoGP riders are often observed going into corners with no inside footpeg pressure at all.

Counter-Steering isn’t rocket science to perform, it is simple and obvious. Press the right bar and the bike quite nicely cooperates by leaning and turning right and vice a versa for lefts...press more and it leans and turns more. Stop pressing, it goes no further. It is quick and easy to teach, works 100% of the time and performs brilliantly by the definition of steering. The Wright brothers, when they built bicycles, observed the phenomena over one hundred years ago. They were pretty smart guys.

If Body Steering doesn’t work how do riders misread what is happening? Here is a similar misunderstanding riders have that may shed some light on that question. Does the throttle roll-on make the bike come up out of its lean at the corner’s exit? Ask 10 and 9 will say yes, 1 won’t commit. What is the answer? Aside from dire mechanical problems like really badly worn tires and some fat-tire cruisers, the answer is NO.

Contrary to opinion, it won't come back up until counter steered back up. Riders counter-steer the bike back up quite unconsciously. Similarly, as riders exit turns they roll on the gas, the counter steering action to bring the bike back up is very light, most riders do it unconsciously. Once an action is committed to muscle memory it remains uninspected.

We still get a fair percentage of riders who look at their coach with serious disbelief when she has them demonstrate how the bike steers. They honestly believe they are riding like they drive their car turning the handlebars right to go right. It’s a rewarding coaching experience when they realize counter steering is what they’ve been doing all the time. And most importantly, it opens the door to vast improvement.

At the schools we now have 215 different exercises that clarify and debug the myths and mysteries that surround the art of cornering and educate our students toward technical perfection in their riding.

Newton’s laws and the Wright brothers’ observations are in direct conflict with the peg weighting, tank pressing theory and, by strict definition, it isn't steering. What is known for sure is that without an understanding of both the simplicity and the complexity of Newton’s Law of Motion, bridges, houses and motorcycles could never have been built nor could space ships be launched and accurately steered to Mars. Maybe it is rocket science after all.